Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: bsq

quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller

But does a 250kg bomb penetrate an Iwo class BB in the game? If not then I cant see how one could be sunk by a single kamikaze hit??

Edit: Can the OP back this claim up with a screenshot?

This do you as I have tried to reproduce it:

Japanese aircraft
A6M8 Zero x 18



Allied aircraft
F4U-1D Corsair x 2
F6F-5 Hellcat x 5


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M8 Zero: 11 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
F4U-1D Corsair: 1 destroyed
F6F-5 Hellcat: 3 destroyed

Allied Ships
CL Miami
CVL Langley, Kamikaze hits 1, and is sunk
CV Hancock, Kamikaze hits 1, and is sunk
CV Franklin, Kamikaze hits 1, and is sunk
BB New Jersey
CA Vincennes, Kamikaze hits 1, and is sunk
CLAA Oakland



Aircraft Attacking:
13 x A6M8 Zero flying as kamikaze *
Kamikaze: 2 x 100 kg GP Bomb

Too powerful, too unrealistic, single hits. 32 000 ton flat tops (even those with wooden flight decks) don't get sunk by single kamikaze strikes.

For Andy Mac, as this is not worse of the excesses I have seen, I'll set this save aside and run several more based on the pre-turn save for this event. I am sure I can get the AI to sink something it really has no right to with single engined kamikaze hits.

Edit...

Ran the following day after not being able to reproduce the above after 3 more goes and look;

Loss of CV Bunker Hill on Apr 18, 1945 is admitted
Loss of CV Intrepid on Apr 18, 1945 is admitted
Loss of CV Franklin on Apr 18, 1945 is admitted
Loss of CV Hancock on Apr 18, 1945 is admitted
Loss of CV Randolph on Apr 18, 1945 is admitted
Loss of CV Bennington on Apr 18, 1945 is admitted
Loss of CV Shangri-La on Apr 18, 1945 is admitted
Loss of CV Hornet II on Apr 18, 1945 is admitted
Loss of CVL Princeton on Apr 18, 1945 is admitted
Loss of CVL Belleau Wood on Apr 18, 1945 is admitted
Loss of CVL Cowpens on Apr 18, 1945 is admitted
Loss of CVL Langley on Apr 18, 1945 is admitted
Loss of BB New Jersey on Apr 18, 1945 is admitted
Loss of CA Tuscaloosa on Apr 18, 1945 is admitted
Loss of CA Wichita on Apr 18, 1945 is admitted
Loss of CA Baltimore on Apr 18, 1945 is admitted
Loss of CB Alaska on Apr 18, 1945 is admitted
Loss of CB Guam on Apr 18, 1945 is admitted
Loss of CLAA Juneau on Apr 18, 1945 is admitted
Loss of CLAA San Diego on Apr 18, 1945 is admitted
Loss of CL Columbia on Apr 18, 1945 is admitted
Loss of CL Montpelier on Apr 18, 1945 is admitted
Loss of CL Birmingham on Apr 18, 1945 is admitted
Loss of CL Vicksburg on Apr 18, 1945 is admitted
Loss of DD Cooper on Apr 18, 1945 is admitted
Loss of DD Drexler on Apr 18, 1945 is admitted
Loss of DD Hank on Apr 18, 1945 is admitted
Loss of DD Wallace Lind on Apr 18, 1945 is admitted
Loss of DD Charles S. Sperry on Apr 18, 1945 is admitted
Loss of DD Taussig on Apr 18, 1945 is admitted
Loss of DD Fletcher on Apr 18, 1945 is admitted
Loss of DD Abbot on Apr 18, 1945 is admitted
Loss of DD Ammen on Apr 18, 1945 is admitted
Loss of DD Aulick on Apr 18, 1945 is admitted
Loss of DD Bache on Apr 18, 1945 is admitted
Loss of DD Bennett on Apr 18, 1945 is admitted
Loss of DD Callaghan on Apr 18, 1945 is admitted
Loss of DD Caperton on Apr 18, 1945 is admitted
Loss of DD Capps on Apr 18, 1945 is admitted
Loss of DD Charrette on Apr 18, 1945 is admitted
Loss of DD Chauncey on Apr 18, 1945 is admitted
Loss of DD Cotten on Apr 18, 1945 is admitted
Loss of DD Melvin on Apr 18, 1945 is admitted
Loss of DD Monssen on Apr 18, 1945 is admitted
Loss of DD Duncan on Apr 18, 1945 is admitted
Loss of DD Lardner on Apr 18, 1945 is admitted
Loss of DD Walke on Apr 18, 1945 is admitted
Loss of DD Roe on Apr 18, 1945 is admitted
Loss of DD Dunlap on Apr 18, 1945 is admitted
Loss of DD Fanning on Apr 18, 1945 is admitted
Loss of DD Mahan on Apr 18, 1945 is admitted
Loss of DD Cummings on Apr 18, 1945 is admitted
Loss of DD Drayton on Apr 18, 1945 is admitted
Loss of DD Lamson on Apr 18, 1945 is admitted
Loss of DD Case on Apr 18, 1945 is admitted
Loss of DD Conyngham on Apr 18, 1945 is admitted
Loss of DD Cushing on Apr 18, 1945 is admitted
Loss of DD Perkins on Apr 18, 1945 is admitted
Loss of DD Reid on Apr 18, 1945 is admitted
Loss of DD Preston II on Apr 18, 1945 is admitted
Loss of DD Beatty II on Apr 18, 1945 is admitted
Loss of DD Aaron Ward II on Apr 18, 1945 is admitted

90 % single kamikaze hits by single engined aircraft

quote:

ORIGINAL: bsq

Not taking offence, just posting the facts as my game unfolded. I have sent the saves to Andy Mac.

The after action stuff above was not the worst. The last save I generated (I ran this 6 times - 3 times with odd results, 3 times just a DD sunk (more realistic)...) saw the whole of the FCTF wiped out, thats 8CV, 4CVL, 1 BB, 2 CB, 3CA, 6CL and numerous DDs.

None of them had any more damage than one or system points (like you see after a TF has been at sea for a week or so).

The two parts to the posting are seperate runs, the combat reports for the 2nd summary would have stretched to 5 or 6 pages, so I have attached the 'worst' one here...

quote:

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

The CVEs being kaiser coffins, built on a transport hull.

I wish I would have known beforehand that this game would be modeled on the wishes of unadulterated JFB fantasy because I definately wouldn't have bought it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: che200

           I had the Iowa hit by 18 kamikazes from betty to frances to zeros the damage she received was 20 sys 15 flot and 10 eng. Same thing happened to my other American fast BBs so i think kamikazes are WAD. My Cvs are a differant matter they sink or heavily damage with 5-7 kamikazes. CVEs and CVLS take 3-5 hits normally. How I know I decided to send a super TF to attack Osaka from Manila and I got creamed I shot down a lot of Japanese planes but they got through.

Except that 18 Kamikaze hits from Betties, Frances and Zeros probably should cause more damage on a BB (I guess also a BB could have been in serious trouble in RL after such hits, especially by the bombers) this sounds quite good for me. The question is how many of them make it through Cap, how many are shot down by flak. But the damage done to the CVs, CVLs and CVEs as described above sounds good to me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

Kamikazes sank nothing larger than a CVE, so you're "they sank a lot of ships" applies only to ships smaller than an escort carrier.  Lethal to DD's and DE's, certainly.  Should they be lethal to CV's and BB's, absolutely not.

they shouldn´t be lethal to CVs? Now what would an Essex class look like if four or five Grace loaded up with bombs splash into one? I guess I would call that lethal. But of course you first have to get five hits and that´s the problem. But getting the five hits with a bombing attack is even harder.

quote:

ORIGINAL: che200

Bsq I think you have a bug in your game. Andy in my game there is a bug that if the japanese have a succesful kamikaze attack and the aliies have a naval attack in the same turn the allied planes do kamikaze naval attacks in the animation screen. I think it is FOW as when i check the actual casualties they differ, if i reload the turn it does not happen again. It only hppene to me with CV planes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bsq

Not taking offence, just posting the facts as my game unfolded. I have sent the saves to Andy Mac.

The after action stuff above was not the worst. The last save I generated (I ran this 6 times - 3 times with odd results, 3 times just a DD sunk (more realistic)...) saw the whole of the FCTF wiped out, thats 8CV, 4CVL, 1 BB, 2 CB, 3CA, 6CL and numerous DDs.

None of them had any more damage than one or system points (like you see after a TF has been at sea for a week or so).

The two parts to the posting are seperate runs, the combat reports for the 2nd summary would have stretched to 5 or 6 pages, so I have attached the 'worst' one here...

" Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room. " President Muffley

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

So if anyone wants me to take a peak at the japanese side and fix anything I looks a bit iffy I am happpy to do so just send me a save and I will take a look at the ususal suspects

a.mcphie@btinternet.com

Its worth doing spring cleaning like this maybe once per year. The game will paly out fine without it but it can help reduce the niggle factor a little so I am happy to help

Win /Win I get a look at how sneaky you are and you get a free quick review

quote:

ORIGINAL: bsq

Not taking offence, just posting the facts as my game unfolded. I have sent the saves to Andy Mac.

The after action stuff above was not the worst. The last save I generated (I ran this 6 times - 3 times with odd results, 3 times just a DD sunk (more realistic)...) saw the whole of the FCTF wiped out, thats 8CV, 4CVL, 1 BB, 2 CB, 3CA, 6CL and numerous DDs.

None of them had any more damage than one or system points (like you see after a TF has been at sea for a week or so).

The two parts to the posting are seperate runs, the combat reports for the 2nd summary would have stretched to 5 or 6 pages, so I have attached the 'worst' one here...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: bsq

Not taking offence, just posting the facts as my game unfolded. I have sent the saves to Andy Mac.

The after action stuff above was not the worst. The last save I generated (I ran this 6 times - 3 times with odd results, 3 times just a DD sunk (more realistic)...) saw the whole of the FCTF wiped out, thats 8CV, 4CVL, 1 BB, 2 CB, 3CA, 6CL and numerous DDs.

None of them had any more damage than one or system points (like you see after a TF has been at sea for a week or so).

The two parts to the posting are seperate runs, the combat reports for the 2nd summary would have stretched to 5 or 6 pages, so I have attached the 'worst' one here...

As others have said, I think you have a bug, or bugs in your game. Aside from the kami attack results, take a look at the first Tokyo Superfort raid results. How do the ALLIES suffer over 136,000 casualties from an air attack on Tokyo? How do 34 Superforts cause almost 90,000 Japanese casualities?

" Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room. " President Muffley

quote:

ORIGINAL: stuman

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: bsq

Not taking offence, just posting the facts as my game unfolded. I have sent the saves to Andy Mac.

The after action stuff above was not the worst. The last save I generated (I ran this 6 times - 3 times with odd results, 3 times just a DD sunk (more realistic)...) saw the whole of the FCTF wiped out, thats 8CV, 4CVL, 1 BB, 2 CB, 3CA, 6CL and numerous DDs.

None of them had any more damage than one or system points (like you see after a TF has been at sea for a week or so).

The two parts to the posting are seperate runs, the combat reports for the 2nd summary would have stretched to 5 or 6 pages, so I have attached the 'worst' one here...

As others have said, I think you have a bug, or bugs in your game. Aside from the kami attack results, take a look at the first Tokyo Superfort raid results. How do the ALLIES suffer over 136,000 casualties from an air attack on Tokyo? How do 34 Superforts cause almost 90,000 Japanese casualities?

Bullwinkle, I must be missing soemthing. To what are you referring ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: SuluSea


No excuses , if this is W.A.D. then this game is garbage.

quote:

ORIGINAL: che200

Had the same bug as well pre-patch unfortunately i did not keep a save but wen i checked the units in the hex casualties where differant. They were from a normal attack circa 500 casualties mostly disabled.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: che200

Had the same bug as well pre-patch unfortunately i did not keep a save but wen i checked the units in the hex casualties where differant. They were from a normal attack circa 500 casualties mostly disabled.

My point isn't that the Japanese casualties are wildly inflated. I'm sure they are, FOW, etc. A pain, but explainable.

My point was the Allied casualties, of any number, in a raid on Tokyo. What are they, POWs? Why does the code even go to a place where Allied casualties in ANY NUMBER can be reported in this strike? I'm not sure it does, which is why I wonder if this game in particular is bugged.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: che200

Had the same bug as well pre-patch unfortunately i did not keep a save but wen i checked the units in the hex casualties where differant. They were from a normal attack circa 500 casualties mostly disabled.

My point isn't that the Japanese casualties are wildly inflated. I'm sure they are, FOW, etc. A pain, but explainable.

My point was the Allied casualties, of any number, in a raid on Tokyo. What are they, POWs? Why does the code even go to a place where Allied casualties in ANY NUMBER can be reported in this strike? I'm not sure it does, which is why I wonder if this game in particular is bugged.

" Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room. " President Muffley

quote:

ORIGINAL: bsq

I think that this is a stack overflow error that has been seen before. Look at the numbers after the casualty figures ie 0 Destroyed and 0 Disabled. These are just screwy numbers the maths throws out when the CPU is confronted with something it cannot handle. I think we are lucky, it most software I have worked with it would be an unhandled exception at the very least and a CTD in most cases or perhaps a BSD (God forbid). At least AE just reports it with a virtual 'shoulder shrug' and then moves on...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: bsq

I think that this is a stack overflow error that has been seen before. Look at the numbers after the casualty figures ie 0 Destroyed and 0 Disabled. These are just screwy numbers the maths throws out when the CPU is confronted with something it cannot handle. I think we are lucky, it most software I have worked with it would be an unhandled exception at the very least and a CTD in most cases or perhaps a BSD (God forbid). At least AE just reports it with a virtual 'shoulder shrug' and then moves on...

I had assumed they were civilian cacualties. The Destroyed and Disabled numbers are by squad, and are always military.
And, while I'm not a very good programmer, I doubt a stack overflow error would also trigger the text output to preface the Allied casualty report. Why was there ANY math done in an Allied casualty calculation module that allowed a potential stack overflow?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

One point concerning development... The early war period received the vast majority of play testing during development and the late war period not so much. This was mainly do to the numerous restarts required after patching game-stopping bugs and other issues... and there were many. The devs produced new builds about every other week on average. Each build had a number of bugs fixed that had been identified in previous builds. These all had to be tested plus all the suggested game improvements that were gleaned from the forum had to be looked at and then a determination made as to whether it could actually be done.

Restarts averaged about every other week during development (and several times more often than that). And while there were many playtesters busting their butt to identify new bugs, much of the playtesting occurred in sandboxes or against the AI due to the necessity of identifying as many bugs as fast as possible. PBEM testing is much slower but was also used.

So, are there going to be bugs? Absolutely, especially the later in the war it gets. There simply wasn't enough time to playtest the game all the way to the end without incurring unacceptable delays. Even if there were time, bugs would pop up as players did things that were unexpected.

The devs will squash every bug that is within their power to do so. It'll take a little time as new bugs are identified and new game improvements are included. They have shown you guys unparalleled support and will continue to do so, of that I am sure. We can at least show them a little respect by not shouting about how borked we think the game is every time we encounter something that doesn't looked right.

Guys, just remember that the dev team is doing their absolute best to squash all reported bugs. The majority of bug squashers don't get paid for their work... they are all volunteers and their goal is to make the game as complete and bug-free as possible. So please don't heap any abuse on them. We can't afford to lose a single one of them if we want this game to grow.

And one last plea...

It's dang hard for them to reproduce any bugs without before and after save game files. Be as complete as you can with the description of your bug and send the save game files to the devs via the tech support thread. Posting a combat report seldom provides any useful clues as to how that report was derived.

Preaching off....

Chez